Family Law Hub

Businesses

Latest updates

  • A wife’s claim for financial remedy orders, involving properties, companies and debts owed by the couple to the wife's father. The valuation of a company was a major issue, and there was a question as to whether a terminal value should be added. Cohen J preferred the wife's argument that it should not, and disregarded an unreliable best case scenario forecast. He declined to order a sale of shares, as desired by the wife. The husband was to pay the wife a lump sum of £8,948,930, to be reduced pro rata if his shareholding was diminished, plus £15,000 a year per child for school fees. One property would be transferred to the husband, the other to the wife. Judgment, 14/06/2019, free
  • The applicant, a convicted sex offender, applied for an order that a letter of request be issued to the American authorities for the respondent to be examined and required to produce documents relating to supposed assets. The claim being highly speculative, and given the applicant's conduct, Mostyn J concluded that it would be disproportionate and unlawful to grant the application. Judgment, 20/05/2019, free
  • The wife resided in Tenerife and Russia, the husband in London. Following divorce proceedings in Russia, the wife applied for leave to apply for financial relief in England and Wales, pursuant to section 13 of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. Williams J held that her claim could not be characterised as wholly unmeritorious, and leave was granted. Judgment, 29/04/2019, free
  • In financial remedy proceedings, the husband was trying to thwart the wife's claim by asserting that the business and the properties were owned by his mother, in a situation where the true owners had been camouflaged. In virtually every case the actual facts would determine the real ownership of a piece of property, and an enquiry into real ownership would consider the intentions of the relevant actors. Conveyancers were urged to record how the beneficial interest is to be held. Mostyn J found that the business and properties were owned 50:50 by the husband and wife. Judgment, 27/03/2019, free
  • Wife appealed and husband cross-appealed against a financial remedy order where the issues of principle raised related to the manner in which the court applied the sharing principle. They can be summarised as follows: (a) What approach should the court take to the valuation of shares in a private company when determining how to divide the marital wealth; and (b) What approach should the court take when determining what part of the parties' current wealth is properly to be defined as non-marital in circumstances where that wealth includes shares in a private company which was founded by a spouse prior to the date when the parties married or started living together. Judgment, 30/12/2018, free

Latest know-how

Latest training

Copyright 

Copyright in the original legal material published on the Family Law Hub is vested in Mills & Reeve LLP (as per date of publication shown on screen) unless indicated otherwise.

Disclaimer

The Family Law Hub website relates to the legal position in England Wales and all of the material within it has been prepared with the aim of providing key information only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular situation. While Mills & Reeve LLP aims to ensure that the information is correct at the date on which it is added to the website, the legal position can change frequently, and content will not always be updated following any relevant changes. You therefore acknowledge and agree that Mills & Reeve LLP and its members and employees accept no liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss or damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly in connection with any use or reliance on the contents of our website except to the extent that such liability cannot be excluded by law.

Bookmark this item